MartinLoop — Stop Runaway Loops, Bad Code & Token Waste

martin_create_pr

Destructive

Create or preview a GitHub pull request containing a MartinLoop dossier body. Set execute=true to submit the PR via gh.

Instructions

Create or preview a GitHub PR with a MartinLoop dossier body. Use execute=true to actually call gh.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	No
`file`	No
`title`	No
`format`	No
`latest`	No
`loopId`	No
`execute`	No
`runsDir`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	GitHub-flavoured Markdown PR body containing the run dossier.
`grade`	Yes	Verification grade assigned to the run.
`score`	Yes	Numeric verification score from 0–100.
`title`	Yes	Suggested GitHub pull-request title.
`loopId`	Yes	MartinLoop run identifier used to generate the summary.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.6Aug 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "body": {
+    "description": "GitHub-flavoured Markdown PR body containing the run dossier.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "grade": {
+    "description": "Verification grade assigned to the run.",
+    "enum": [
+      "mergeable",
+      "mergeable_with_review",
+      "needs_review",
+      "blocked",
+      "insufficient_evidence"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "loopId": {
+    "description": "MartinLoop run identifier used to generate the summary.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "score": {
+    "description": "Numeric verification score from 0–100.",
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "title": {
+    "description": "Suggested GitHub pull-request title.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "loopId",
+  "title",
+  "body",
+  "grade",
+  "score"
+]

First observedv0.3.9Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining that the destructive action only happens when execute=true. This clarifies the side-effect boundary and prevents accidental PR creation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, with the primary action and the critical execute flag front-loaded. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 parameters, a oneOf constraint, and no schema descriptions, this description is far too thin. It omits how to choose among file, loopId, or latest, what format options mean, and how base, title, and runsDir affect the PR. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics are largely undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains execute. The remaining seven parameters (file, loopId, latest, format, title, base, runsDir) and the oneOf selection logic are left unexplained, leaving agents to guess how to specify the dossier source.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: create or preview a GitHub PR with a MartinLoop dossier body. The preview-vs-execute distinction is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling PR-related tools like martin_pr_summary or martin_review_pr.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage guidance for the key behavior: use execute=true to actually call gh, otherwise preview. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the preview/execute gate is a strong, explicit usage signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.